A Nondualistic Duality?

Originally Posted by swampgrl

Now is so illusive. Is now the moment of conscious thought or before?

I really have to think about that one.

Now is a concept.
If I experience seeing a cup. And then I think about the cup.
I am first one with the seeing of the cup and the next moment I am one with the thoughts about the cup.
these experiences only seem to occur at the same time, but there is a (very fast)linear progression from the first to the next. So i'd say there is no before the experience of the cup. Seeing the cup is the consciousness of it.

Using seeing here as point of contact.
you could insert any of the senses making contact.

[swampgrl]

Originally Posted by catsquotl

Seeing the cup is the consciousness of it.

So in that scenario, the cup and consciousness are one?

Now could very well be before we are conscious of it and the concept of now as perceived is an illusion.

Proposition: Now is to consciousness like history is to Now.

Originally Posted by swampgrl

So in that scenario, the cup and consciousness are one?

Now could very well be before we are conscious of it and the concept of now as perceived is an illusion.

Proposition: Now is to consciousness like history is to Now.

Yes. I'd say the cup and consciousness are one. They arise co-dependent on each other.
As for the proposition. No
remembering history is a thought that arises here and now.

Thank you for forcing me to be clear..

With Love
Eelco

Originally Posted by swampgrl

Now could very well be before we are conscious of it and the concept of now as perceived is an illusion.

That would imply that now is separated from you.

For me.. My entire existence is experienced inside me. Consciousness is all that arises within me from one now to the next now. Whether or not I am always aware of that at full speed doesn't change that fact.

Some people talk about timelessness. But the experience of that timelessness is now.
As an example of one such experience. Once when sitting in meditation I found myself simultaneously sitting, falling over and face down on the ground. That was the experience.

If I let my mind do it's thing I will conclude that I must have fallen over in a linear fashion. My experience however was that of all these 3 states of body position at the same time.

Now which one is true.

With Love
Eelco
PS yes it did freak me out a bit

[swampgrl]

Interesting discussion for sure, thank you!

Consciousness is a reflection of itself as itself with nothing in-between.

If it were possible to be invisible between two continuous mirrors, what would they reflect?

Everything as mirror and nothing as one.

Greetings and cheers,

Sierra

P.s. I've experienced something similar, pretty convincing stuff in the moment.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by slash112

As per the teaching of Vedanta, there is a witness (the self, pure awareness, the void, nothingness) and the witnessed (thoughts, senses, form, somethingness).

That is seen as a duality which must be resolved, right? As in, the witness and the witnessed are not two but one. Like the screen and the light hitting it are not two things but one.

That's fine, I love that resolution of nonduality.

But what if I resolved it a different way. What if I said that the witness cannot even count as another one because it is literally nothingness? So the witness and the witnessed is not a duality. It's not one and another one. It's one and nothing else. Therefore not two. It's a nondualistic duality... Only if you count "nothingness" to be a "something" can it be referred to as a duality.

We may rest in the nothingness so that the somethingness is our one and only reality. (Which of course is already true)

According to what I perhaps incorrectly understand the most basic premise (principle) of Quantum Mechanics to be, it is 'the witness' (i.e. the 'observer', i.e 'consciousness') which 'collapses' the 'wave function' of all potential possibilities into the possibility that is 'projected', hence 'perceived' (i.e. 'observed', i.e. 'witnessed').

Can the 'Creator' be separate from 'Creation', or is it/she/she necessarily one with It?

From Ch.9 of The Bhagavad Gita:

"I am the Father of the universe and its Mother; I am its Nourisher and its Grandfather; I am the Knowable and the Pure; I am Om; and I am the Sacred Scriptures.

I am the Goal, the Sustainer, the Lord, the Witness, the Home, the Shelter, the Lover and the Origin; I am Life and Death; I am the Fountain and the Seed Imperishable.

I am the Heat of the Sun, I release and hold back the Rains. I am Death and Immortality; I am Being and Not-Being."

It also occurs to me that the very act of 'seeing' anything requires 'duality' - that which something is 'seen' as being in contrast to/with something else which it is 'seen' as being different from (formally speaking).

Woohoo, Slash!
Without such 'duality', you could/would not 'see' anything at all, as in looking at a 'white' this or that in a world of 'whiteness'.

[swampgrl]

Originally Posted by davidsun

Can the 'Creator' be separate from 'Creation', or is it/she/she necessarily one with It?

Duality as one
Neither this nor that
Neither here, nor there

Last year a foolish lay practitioner.
This year no different.

With love
Eelco

[swampgrl]

Originally Posted by catsquotl

Last year a foolish lay practitioner.
This year no different.

With love
Eelco

Adding a touch to that flower.....

Last year as foolish lay practitioner.
This year no different.

But it's a beautiful flower regardless.

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by swampgrl

Adding a touch to that flower.....

Last year as foolish lay practitioner.
This year no different.

But it's a beautiful flower regardless.

Yep.

Some of your other posts - you need to give me a cheat sheet